European rugby talks end with no solution to impasse

First topic message reminder :

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/rugby-union/19878759

Talks over the future direction of European rugby have broken up with no solution to the impasse.

The meeting in Rome ended after six hours with rugby executives agreeing to continue negotiations in Dublin on 30 October.

The existing European Rugby Cup deal expires in 2013.

English Premiership and French clubs want changes to the Heineken Cup format from 2014 and have threatened to quit the competition.

The row was further complicated when Premiership Rugby and European Rugby Cup Ltd struck separate television deals for the rights to show their games.

Speaking after Monday's meeting, Rugby Football Union chief executive Ian Ritchie told BBC Sport: "I think it's not going to be resolved in one meeting. It's got to be seen as a priority but it's not going to be sorted this week or next."

In a statement the European Rugby Cup, the body which runs European club rugby tournaments, said: "The meeting featured six hours of comprehensive discussion on a broad range of issues raised by stakeholders including the structure and format of the European club rugby tournaments.

"All parties reaffirmed their desire to see European club rugby's tournaments continue to grow and develop further and to involve all of the current participant stakeholders."

Kingshu wrote:

Poorfour wrote:Interesting facts, Kingshu, but are they actually relevant to the point you're making? The UK includes England, Wales, Scotland and, erm, Ulster, and the RFU (well, actually the PRL) is not looking to keep all the TV money for viewers in England. The deal only covers, IIRC, home games played by English teams, and PRL are proposing to put the European element of that into the communal pot.

If I understand it correctly, the BT deal for English club games is worth more than the Sky deal in its entirety. PRL would like to keep a bigger proportion of the pot, but the pot itself is big enough that everyone gets more money

Not meaning to be pernickety, but you mean Northern Ireland, not Ulster, there is a difference. Ulster is bigger than Northern Ireland, to use it in that context 3 of the 9 counties would be saying, poorfour, says we're part of the UK now, when did that happen? do I have to move? and can I still like Guinness?

but back on point
"PRL would like to keep a bigger proportion of the pot, but the pot itself is big enough that everyone gets more money"

Thsi would be bad for rugby, ok the Italians and such like would get more money, but the % difference between rich and poor teams would increase, it would become harder and harder for them to keep hold of thier best players, and competativeness would decrease over time.

I'm actually surprised that they only get around 11% while SRU gets 13% same as Wales and Ireland, I actually feel that the FIR are hard done by.
think maybe FIR and SRU should have 12% each and IRFU and WRU 13% each or each get 12.5%.

But sure if everyone got a 10% increase in money then the difference between the rich and poor teams would be identical.

I don't think the distinction between "suits" and "blazers" is particularly helpful. Money is on everyone's mind, and there's certainly no universal agreement about what putting rugby first should actually mean in practice.

None of us have to agree on the definition of anything Rugby Fan................

so?

Nothing to talk about if we carry that reality to its natural conclusion. Silence.

It's a bit of a cop out though to say nobody can really talk about anything with authority as afterall, "What is putting rugby first?", "What is the definition of a Chief Executive?" "What is money?" "What is a blazer mentality?" "What is European Rugby?" "What is 'best'?"

We all can disagree on the definitions of everything. But we need to pretend we agree on some of them to have a conversation or a sporting competition. Besides, I think us 'suit'/'blazer' talking guys were just having some fun with the topic

PS ...money is not on my mind. Just the continuation of good European rugby with Irish interest. I'm not an rugby executive and I'm sure a good few others in here aren't either. We want rugby and our voice is as legitmate as the money men's concerns.

SecretFly wrote:PS ...money is not on my mind. Just the continuation of good European rugby with Irish interest. I'm not an rugby executive and I'm sure a good few others in here aren't either. We want rugby and our voice is as legitmate as the money men's concerns.

It's as legitimate, but that doesn't mean it deserves equal weight. The "money men" are trying - albeit with some big differences of opinion - to find a format that is financially sustainable for the people and organisations that fund professional rugby. If they don't succeed, the game is unlikely to survive for long in its current form. Against that, the views of the fans are secondary. Important, worthy of consideration, but secondary.

If money isn't on your mind, perhaps it should be. I am always surprised by how little thought people on this and other boards invest in understanding how the economics of the sport they follow work. It's not particularly complicated, even if the details aren't always public. A lot of the things that fans complain about have their roots in the pressures that a fledgling professional sport faces.

The whole game is a network of cross-subsidies and distortions, a lot of which are aimed at keeping enough competition afloat that everyone can earn money. For instance, why do the PRL clubs share out their TV and RFU income fairly evenly? Why have a salary cap? Because in both cases it makes it helps the smaller clubs to stay afloat and remain competitive. Take those distortions away and the league would collapse; there wouldn't be enough teams to make a decent competition.

Whatever the fans think and whatever the rhetoric, the outcome of the ERC discussions will be largely driven by money. Who can bring what to the table? What constitutes an offer that the different parties couldn't afford to refuse?

Does anybody actually know how the money will be split? Or even how it's been suggested to be split? As far as I know no mention of this has cropped up (closest is PRL saying they don't want to worry about the 'slice' size and more about the 'cake').

So all the comments about SRU losing money or the PRL wanting to take money off other, etc are completely unfounded (as far as we know).

I also don't understand how staying with Sky would make it cheaper for fans to watch rugby. BBC or ITV would of course be the cheapest. Then there are suggestions that the BT sports channel would be available via Freeview (on subscription). This is similar to ESPN was/is and would a hell of a lot cheaper than subscribing to Sky in the first place, then the 4 sports channels you need to ensure you watch the games you want.

Poorfour,

I have a life filled with other interests and other needs and the 'money' word is needed for other aspects of my life. The execs of rugby will come to their decision - without our help here. I only engage in the discussion because I have my own interests in the topic...and they invariably come out (on this occasion I'm only dipping in for a bit of fun) - you or others can have the 'money' concerns and interests and you're free to enjoy the financial details.

All that's fine - good for you. But nothing you or I say here as regards the details of business and contracts and funding and TV rights and advertising revenus will influence what the big boys around the table eventually decide, so I'm not going to be unduely worried by my lack of interest in the detailed business end of things.

Rugby - the game - Irish involvment at the highest end of it in Europe because I'm simply and honestly biased - those are my concerns. We can talk about everything else in between and it's enjoyble to talk about the money aspects too - but no, I don't need a crash course on the intricacies of the PRL/ERC/IRFU/RFU etc finances to have ten cents worth of opinion on the subject.

Sorry Fly, that wasn't aimed at you in particular. You are of course free to air your opinions.

I agree that we don't (and never will) know the whole picture on the financial side of things. But just as a detective's first question is "qui bono?", I just find it leads to better understanding and more reasoned debate when posters try to consider what we do know about the economic realities. The book Freakonomics has some good (and entertaining) examples of puzzling phenomena that become much clearer when you understand the incentives of the parties involved.

So if numbers really need to be reduced in the HC and it be made so everyone has a qualifying tourney then how about

England 5 teams deceided on league position or however, France the same

Rabo each union one guaranteed place, 4 places to be decided on league position.

Previous years winners

Amlin winners.

So 20 teams in total.

The rabo becomes a fight for HC qualification, everyone loses a bit of guaranteed teams. France and England could have up to 7 teams - if the win both cups, ireland or wales up to 5

TJ - my guess would be that the eventual compromise could look a lot like what you propose.

Except that I'm not sure how or where Ireland or Wales would find 5 teams to enter... Neath or Ponty, perhaps?

SecretFly wrote:...Nothing to talk about if we carry that reality to its natural conclusion. Silence...

I'm not looking to end debate but open it up. Framing the issue as a "guardians of rugby" vs "money men" dichotomy closes down the debate with a false depiction of the views of the parties involved.

The men who have put money into French and English teams could have found far more profitable uses for their wealth, so they are clearly not involved with rugby just for money reasons. Meanwhile, unions have demonstrated time and again just how much money considerations drive their behaviour. We can probably find love for the game, self-interest, score-settling, personal aggrandisement, friendship, fear, generosity, charity, ambition, hints of corruption and more, on all sides.

I think Pete made a fair point when he wondered whether people at the negotiating table were talking past each other because of their different backgrounds. It doesn't particularly bother me when I hear words like product, package, corporate and selling used in reference to rugby. If they do bother others, then by all means, lets work out a lexicon which is acceptable to all sides, so we can have unvarnished discussions about money when we need to talk about money.

One of rugby's problems remains small crowds. While this is more acute for some Rabo sides, Premiership clubs also have weak drawing power at times.

We are doing considerably better than the amateur era. Back then, outside of derby matches, you could have the ground to yourself as a spectator at more than a few league fixtures. Rugby is now too big, and there's too much money, to be an amateur sport. Nonetheless, the grassroots structure and support of the game still seems amateur.

Our sport is an odd beast. It developed a lucrative international profile before cultivating a financially solid base. Team sports like baseball, American football and Aussie Rules have the latter, but no real international competition to speak of (I would include the World Baseball Classic in that assessment). Cricket is probably the nearest comparison but the county scene was paying its way as a professional game, as were its equivalents elsewhere. It's only relatively recently that finances below the top strata have been more pressing.

Take Wales, where rugby is ostensibly the national game. Welsh clubs were at the heart of their communities but the WRU decided to emulate the provincial model which was working for Ireland. It's worth remembering some of the reasons they did that. The WRU was concerned that international players were spread over too many clubs. Since not all were going to qualify for Heineken Cup, this would leave a fair number without the experience of higher-level competition. There were also fears that clubs would just not be wealthy enough even to match the provinces in Ireland, let alone French and English clubs.

Welsh regional rugby, then, is still young - not yet ten years old - and the scars remain. It's clear that one plus one didn't equal two as far as the ticket-buying public were concerned. Worse, the liquidation of the Celtic Warriors meant fans of Bridgend and Pontypridd - the clubs which formed the team - no longer had any natural allegiance to a top Welsh side. Perhaps others here on the board can say where the those fans have gone.

The hope must be that time makes a difference. Any children growing up today to love rugby will only know the regions, and won't feel the disenfranchisement of older generations. In the best case, rugby retains, and even grows, its popularity in Wales, and this interest channels into the four regions.

One of the difficulties everywhere, however, is balancing the conflicting demands of the professional game. The moneyspinners are still the main international competitions. If someone's interest in the sport has been piqued by watching the national side do well in Tests, then they probably want to see these same players on the pitch when they turn up for a match at their nearest major ground. That's not a promise rugby can always be certain of keeping.

Players might be signed to contracts elsewhere; the national union might have them in training or cotton wool (NZ famously kept All Blacks back from Super Rugby ahead of the 2007 World Cup); their team could be resting them; or they could be injured.

Successful international sides may well inspire children to join a mini-rugby game, and get some momentum into junior rugby, but it's not quite so easy for the professional sides to see immediate benefits if the Test players aren't regularly on show in their shop window. Below Test level, sides have to somehow find a way to build fan loyalty without relying too heavily on the pulling power of a handful of marquee names who can't play all the time.

All games, in every league, need to be competitive attractions in their own right. That's not an argument for introducing or abolishing relegation; or restructuring qualification incentives for other tournaments. It's just about building an environment where your fans desperately want you to beat the other team no matter what's at stake. We are fighting about how to structure European competition but we put the cart before the horse if we don't ensure we have viable leagues.

You can't just hope that more people will turn up. You have to actively get them interested. If you don't want to use the word "marketing", then find another one which describes that process. It's not a problem if you don't want to call the firms who televise your games "media partners". Just as long as you understand that any contract you agree needs to give those firms direct incentives to put their efforts into promoting all your games, and not just milking the crown jewels.

Kingshu wrote:

Poorfour wrote:A lot of emotive words being thrown around here. Fairness, worth, greed.

I doubt it will change anyone's entrenched positions, but:
1) Let's put the supposed "greed" of AP owners in perspective. NH Rugby as a professional sport only makes money at the international level. Most clubs/provinces/regions are not profitable. The money to keep them going has to come from somewhere. In England, that is from the owners, most of whom have lost millions on rugby and will lose more before it's profitable. They aren't saints, but they are mostly propping up a game they love.

2) The current financial arrangements around ERC result in a net transfer of value from the English and French clubs to the Rabo provinces/regions/clubs. The big TV audience (and therefore money) is in England and France. The way the funds are currently shared doesn't reflect that. To some extent that's a good thing - the competition needs the full range of nations. But the BT deal seems to be offering everyone more money in absolute terms and the English clubs more in relative terms; neither seems unreasonable.

3) Trying to equate absolute numbers of places in the competition with fairness is ridiculous. The professional game supports different numbers of clubs in each country and the level of participation is mathematically disproportionate - 50% or fewer of the English and French clubs, 100% of Scottish and Italian clubs. Fair? I support this to the point where I'd say that participation by each nation should be guaranteed. But when it reaches a point that Rabo position has almost no bearing on qualification, the tournament loses something.

4) I don't think it's a question of whether the AWC/LV= or Amlin is "worth" a place in the HEC. The reason that place is tied to winning the event is so that teams make an effort to win them. Would anyone really bother with these tournaments if there were no HEC place attached? Perhaps this point is hard to understand if you support a team whose qualification for the HEC is guaranteed. But don't try to tell me it's not (dammit!) fairer that a team gains entry to a competition by virtue of winning something than that they are handed it on a plate year after year.

Just on point 2 about the TV rights,

40% more viewers in the UK tunned in the Watch the q-final between Munster and Ulster than the Saracens Q-final the same day. Now is it fair if the RFU keep all the TV money for Viewers in England?
I believe that its the package of the H-cup that sells, and as such the package should be sold together and divided, under the BT deal would that game have been shown in the UK? and if so would Munster and Ulster profited from it, or would the ones that gained most be English clubs that weren't playing as England increases its relative share?

Trying to prove a point based on one instance is a bit of a nonsense, far more pertinent would be the comparitive number of viewers each nations' teams draw throughout the group stages, this is where the TV companies get most viewers and expect to benefit most from their investment.

Have you got a link for the viewer numbers for those two matches? How big a numerical difference are we talking about? Do the numbers take into account people recording the games or watching them online and through portable devices? Games at certain times of the weekend will draw more live viewers than at others; are they at home for lunch, out for the afternoon or for the evening.

niwatts wrote:

Kingshu wrote:

Poorfour wrote:A lot of emotive words being thrown around here. Fairness, worth, greed.

I doubt it will change anyone's entrenched positions, but:
1) Let's put the supposed "greed" of AP owners in perspective. NH Rugby as a professional sport only makes money at the international level. Most clubs/provinces/regions are not profitable. The money to keep them going has to come from somewhere. In England, that is from the owners, most of whom have lost millions on rugby and will lose more before it's profitable. They aren't saints, but they are mostly propping up a game they love.

2) The current financial arrangements around ERC result in a net transfer of value from the English and French clubs to the Rabo provinces/regions/clubs. The big TV audience (and therefore money) is in England and France. The way the funds are currently shared doesn't reflect that. To some extent that's a good thing - the competition needs the full range of nations. But the BT deal seems to be offering everyone more money in absolute terms and the English clubs more in relative terms; neither seems unreasonable.

3) Trying to equate absolute numbers of places in the competition with fairness is ridiculous. The professional game supports different numbers of clubs in each country and the level of participation is mathematically disproportionate - 50% or fewer of the English and French clubs, 100% of Scottish and Italian clubs. Fair? I support this to the point where I'd say that participation by each nation should be guaranteed. But when it reaches a point that Rabo position has almost no bearing on qualification, the tournament loses something.

4) I don't think it's a question of whether the AWC/LV= or Amlin is "worth" a place in the HEC. The reason that place is tied to winning the event is so that teams make an effort to win them. Would anyone really bother with these tournaments if there were no HEC place attached? Perhaps this point is hard to understand if you support a team whose qualification for the HEC is guaranteed. But don't try to tell me it's not (dammit!) fairer that a team gains entry to a competition by virtue of winning something than that they are handed it on a plate year after year.

Just on point 2 about the TV rights,

40% more viewers in the UK tunned in the Watch the q-final between Munster and Ulster than the Saracens Q-final the same day. Now is it fair if the RFU keep all the TV money for Viewers in England?
I believe that its the package of the H-cup that sells, and as such the package should be sold together and divided, under the BT deal would that game have been shown in the UK? and if so would Munster and Ulster profited from it, or would the ones that gained most be English clubs that weren't playing as England increases its relative share?

Trying to prove a point based on one instance is a bit of a nonsense, far more pertinent would be the comparitive number of viewers each nations' teams draw throughout the group stages, this is where the TV companies get most viewers and expect to benefit most from their investment.

Have you got a link for the viewer numbers for those two matches? How big a numerical difference are we talking about? Do the numbers take into account people recording the games or watching them online and through portable devices? Games at certain times of the weekend will draw more live viewers than at others; are they at home for lunch, out for the afternoon or for the evening.

It does prove a point. If you believe the PRL, English teams should get higher viewing figures. Actually it should be far higher.

It proves nothing but what happened in one instance. Something that is predominantly true will by definition have some exceptions.

Did the PRL say that every game played by an English club gets higher viewing figures than those featuring PRO12 sides? If so, please provide a link to this comment and I'll happily concede the point.

In terms of the general claim that was made, that it's the French & English teams that draw the most viewers and therefore money to the competition, the only relevant figures that would prove or disprove it are those for all the matches over the course of the tournament, not individual games.

To repeat profius' question

Have you got a link for the viewer numbers for those two matches?

I have found BARB pretty useless to mine for numbers. You need a subscription it appears to poke around for the data.

Also were the games simultaneous on the same channel with the Sarries game on the red button?

Kingshu: Statements like

40% more viewers in the UK tunned in the Watch the q-final between Munster and Ulster than the Saracens Q-final the same day

presented as a fact are useless without supporting evidence for the assertion. and will inevitably be treated with derision or at best scepticism.

I'm not saying the factoid is wrong , but it's reasonable to request the source.
I probably skipped between the two. But I honestly can't recall.

The Great Aukster wrote:

beshocked wrote:Plus the Pro12 sides add virtually nothing to the Amlin.

... that might be because they're nearly all in the HEC?

That's my point.

The Amlin is dominated by the English and French.

The stat does come from BARB.com, it was looked up at time of games played was easy to get then, had a quick try to get it again, but it would take a hell of a lot of digging now, as games were months ago.

But argueing about a stat is pointless.

as I see it we've agreed on the qualification fo a future h-cup

now we have to agree on how tv money is generated and split, and then we can move onto schedule of tourament, one we have the 3 issues sorted to everyones agreement, we send it o to ERC and save them jetting all over the world to discuss it

I like it Kingshu.

What's the current tv money split?

ERC payments are split, certain amount goes to Unions, they there is performance money, given to each union for a team in the knock out rounds.

I can work out the divide now between knock out and participation payment

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/sport/2012/0915/1224324046581.html

so ERC pot
12% goes toward Prize money (knockout rounds)
88% goes to Unions for participation.

Breaking participation pot down it appears that currently each Union recieves:
RFU = 25%
FRU = 25%
IRFU = 13%
WRU = 13%
SRU = 13%
FIR = 11%

Now we have figures to work with.

It appears that the Almin does really reward in prize money, each union just gets participation payment for playing in Europe and may reward good performance.

Very interesting - the Irish get as much as the Welsh and Scottish.

Correct me if I am wrong but isn't the current Anglo-French stance that they want 30% each?

I think the particular Anglo/French gripe is that proportionally the Scottish and Italians receive more because they only have 2 clubs and none of them are particular draws.

2 clubs sharing 13%/11%. Compared to 6/7 clubs sharing 25% or does the pot go to all English and French clubs. I heard it does.

If that's the case it's 12 or 14 sharing 25%

How about 27.5% each for the English and French clubs.

15% for the Irish clubs.

10% for the Welsh,Scottish and Italian clubs.

Ok My proposal is thus.

Change the pot Break down,

from 12% increase prize money to 30% of pot
15% H-cup
10% Almin
5% 3rd Tier cup

70% instead of 88% is divided among the Unions,
either keep it as
RFU = 25%
FRU = 25%
IRFU = 13%
WRU = 13%
SRU = 13%
FIR = 11%

or even it out a bit better.
where FIR and SRU each get 12%, then reduce everyones take by 1% and this goes to developing unions Romania,Spain Germany etc

so now it is
RFU = 24%
FRU = 24%
IRFU = 12%
WRU = 12%
SRU = 11%
FIR = 11%
Other Unions 6%


Anyone disagree and the sharing of the ERC revenue?

Kingshu I thought there was a call from English and French clubs to get a bigger share not smaller.

I couldn't see them agreeing to your proposal however idealistic it is.

It doesn't solve the problem that proportionally the money per club is far higher for the Scottish and Italian clubs.

The negotiations will be what they are, regardless of any justifications behind them. However, as a starting point, how about equal shares for all participants, both HC and Amlin - HC participants benefit from bigger gates and better sponsorship reflecting the greater prestige of the senior tournament. Amlin participants get rewarded for playing at unearthly hours like Thursday evenings and the Sunday graveyard slot.

Making a simplistic assumption of 40 shares (2 for minnows in the Amlin and 3rd tier, say), then each team gets 2.5%, with the potential for prize money on top.

beshocked wrote:Kingshu I thought there was a call from English and French clubs to get a bigger share not smaller.

I couldn't see them agreeing to your proposal however idealistic it is.

It doesn't solve the problem that proportionally the money per club is far higher for the Scottish and Italian clubs.

RFU and FRU can reduce the number of clubs they have, if they wish, that means that proportionally the money per club would increase.

Would you agree with the FRU getting more than the RFU because they have 14 clubs to the RFU's 12, surley its Frances decision to have 14 teams.

I don't think we will see a change to how the parcipation pot is shared, Celtic Unions will stick together on this, to prevent English and French increasing thier shares and decreasing the Pro 12 unions.

Kingshu wrote:Ok My proposal is thus.

Change the pot Break down,

from 12% increase prize money to 30% of pot
15% H-cup
10% Almin
5% 3rd Tier cup

70% instead of 88% is divided among the Unions,
either keep it as
RFU = 25%
FRU = 25%
IRFU = 13%
WRU = 13%
SRU = 13%
FIR = 11%

or even it out a bit better.
where FIR and SRU each get 12%, then reduce everyones take by 1% and this goes to developing unions Romania,Spain Germany etc

so now it is
RFU = 24%
FRU = 24%
IRFU = 12%
WRU = 12%
SRU = 11%
FIR = 11%
Other Unions 6%


Anyone disagree and the sharing of the ERC revenue?

I like that idea for prize money. As far as the appearance money goes, just divvy it up by clubs in tiers 1 and 2 (I presume in tier 3 travel expenses etc are being covered). So if there's a 20 team HEC and a 20 team (?) Amlin, give every club (including the rest of Europe guys who get into the Amlin) a 2.5% share.


Edit: too slow, Dubbelyew beat me to it.

Kingshu wrote:

beshocked wrote:Kingshu I thought there was a call from English and French clubs to get a bigger share not smaller.

I couldn't see them agreeing to your proposal however idealistic it is.

It doesn't solve the problem that proportionally the money per club is far higher for the Scottish and Italian clubs.

RFU and FRU can reduce the number of clubs they have, if they wish, that means that proportionally the money per club would increase.

Would you agree with the FRU getting more than the RFU because they have 14 clubs to the RFU's 12, surley its Frances decision to have 14 teams.

I don't think we will see a change to how the parcipation pot is shared, Celtic Unions will stick together on this, to prevent English and French increasing thier shares and decreasing the Pro 12 unions.

I think it's the Rabo nations sticking together and refusing to negotiate that has seen the English and the French quit the ERC. I think it's also pretty obvious to most with an objective view that the continuation of the HC is far more important to the future of the Rabo nations than it is the French and English so unfortunately I think it's them that will need to give a little in this situation.

Regards the split of money I posted this a while back but didn't get any response. You can talk about splitting evenly between unions and viewing figures all day long but commercially this is the crux of the matter and thus probably what will decide the split (Right or wrong).

Toadfish wrote:There's a lot of chat about which region deserves how much revenue etc and while there is undoubtedly a lot more to this argument ask yourself this question:

If you assume the HC deal with everyone in it was worth €100m, how much would it be worth if:

a) The English weren't involved
b) The English and French weren't involved
c) The Irish weren't involved

My estimate would be for a) €60m b) €20m c) €90m.

erm. 'scuse me for saying so but I read Kinghu's Irish Indepedent article referenced (which read like a Daily Mail column - the facts are given but the the not-very-subliminal message is nonetheless pervasive). The emotive stance read like a call to arms (I'll quote some references if anyone cares to challenge my view).

The figures being debated in the article relate to HEC(and possibly Amlin) ERC TV revenues. Not ERC general revenues which would include national Unions' subscriptions, IRB contra subsidies from RWC etc. Their other stuff that like in the EU, countries scrape back.

It does appear that there is a rightful, righteous squabble amongst we mere posters are maybe squabbling about their share of the pie and losing sight of the fact there is more pie for everyone.

Listen to Mark McCafferty's from the horse's mouth rationale (about 5 mins in) from R5. He challenges the fact that any ERC 'rights' to HEC etc. TV coverage revenue is 'agreed' as this is a custom, not a signed agreement (i.e. legally binding).
http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b01n62x0/5_live_Sport_5_live_Rugby_09_10_2012/

While a 2.5% share per team as Dubbelyew L Overate and Pete C (Kiwireddevil) suggest is flawed.

SRU and FIR share would fall from 12% to 5%
IRFU and WRU would fall from 13% to 7.5%
RFU increase from 25% to 30%
FRU increase from 25% to 35%

None of the Pro 12 Unions would agree with this, and then whats to stop say the WRU creating teams to enter just to get a bigger share!

Dividing it per team, won't work especially as Unions decreased teams (WRU, FIR and SRU) to concentrate their share into fewer teams, by then changing it to per team, it undoes this work. (why would Italy then concentrate on two teams and not revert back to entering Super 10 teams, after all this year Italy has 6 teams in Europe) so would get a bigger share than Ireland!

I think that the shares won't change, but that the overall participation pot will be a smaller percentage, and the knockout prize money percent of the total ERC pot will increase, and go between the 3 tiers.

None of the Pro 12 Unions would agree with this, and then whats to stop say the WRU creating teams to enter just to get a bigger share!

The qualification rules?

Kingshu wrote:

beshocked wrote:Kingshu I thought there was a call from English and French clubs to get a bigger share not smaller.

I couldn't see them agreeing to your proposal however idealistic it is.

It doesn't solve the problem that proportionally the money per club is far higher for the Scottish and Italian clubs.

RFU and FRU can reduce the number of clubs they have, if they wish, that means that proportionally the money per club would increase.

Would you agree with the FRU getting more than the RFU because they have 14 clubs to the RFU's 12, surley its Frances decision to have 14 teams.

I don't think we will see a change to how the parcipation pot is shared, Celtic Unions will stick together on this, to prevent English and French increasing thier shares and decreasing the Pro 12 unions.

Kingshu the Celtic Unions will have to make a compromise if they want the HC to continue. As long as England and France show some sort of unity they hold the advantage. I don't think anyone wants to see the HC break up but the Pro12 sides have the most to lose.

An Anglo French competition as having been suggested is plausible which would leave the Celtic unions stranded. Afterall the Amlin is basically AngloFrench anyway.

Will France truly want to isolate England?

Kingshu wrote:

beshocked wrote:Kingshu I thought there was a call from English and French clubs to get a bigger share not smaller.

I couldn't see them agreeing to your proposal however idealistic it is.

It doesn't solve the problem that proportionally the money per club is far higher for the Scottish and Italian clubs.

RFU and FRU can reduce the number of clubs they have, if they wish, that means that proportionally the money per club would increase.

Would you agree with the FRU getting more than the RFU because they have 14 clubs to the RFU's 12, surley its Frances decision to have 14 teams.

I don't think we will see a change to how the parcipation pot is shared, Celtic Unions will stick together on this, to prevent English and French increasing thier shares and decreasing the Pro 12 unions.

That suggestion fundamentally misses what the PRL are on about. The PRL represents all 12 clubs in the AP, and is negotiating on behalf of them all. PRL clubs agree to smooth out revenues between them (i.e. HEC teams give up some of the notional HEC money to the Amlin teams) to provide stability of income for the weaker clubs (without which they might go under). PRL's interest is in maximising the pot that goes to English teams. Something similar effectively happens in Ireland, Wales and Scotland, only the redistribution is directly via the IRFU, WRU or SRU rather than a separate commercial body - that's a quirk of ownership and history rather than of how it all works.

Reducing the number of clubs is not an option at the moment. Fewer clubs = fewer games = less gate and TV money. When most teams don't break even, that would be the end of the line for most clubs. It's also one of the reasons why the Rabo clubs have banded together. But the Rabo collectively gets 50% of the participation revenue to share between 12 clubs, vs 25% for the AP to share between 12 - despite the AP being able to generate more revenue than the Rabo.

PRL is effectively saying: "We've negotiated a much bigger TV deal. We will keep most of this for ourselves, but we will give the Rabo teams more than they could negotiate on their own."

2.5% for each team is a fair starting point - it recognises that the collective is stronger than the individual and rewards all equally. However, it should be considered only a starting point.

Above that, teams will earn bonuses by their success.

Crucially, a heallthy dose of realism is also needed, and the viability of the financially weaker teams recognised. So, instead of the money being shared equally, a subsistence bonus can be awarded to prop up the weaker teams. It would need to be balanced. though, so that individual development isn't discouraged by a guaranteed payout, and, at the same time, regularly reviewed, so that as and when the Italians, for example, start becoming self-sufficient with Pro12 gates of 15k+, they lose that bonus.

It is noticeable for instance that the Tigers v Saints game in November is already a sell-out - in fact they have appealed for season ticket holders who are unable to attend to trade in their seats. http://www.leicestertigers.com/news/15059.php

The HEC game v Ospreys this month, on the other hand are still freely available.

Maybe the stark truth is that the Rabo needs the HEC whereas the Jeff and T14 just treat them as jam on top of their bread and butter.

This is despite the fact that punters could just stay at home and watch either game on pay-to-view from the same provider. It appears that the Jeff is a bigger draw for rugby fans in the East Midlands.

Problem is with us English is that we love our league and the occasional cake icing is very welcome. But not essential.

Poorfour you do put the PLC point of view across, the PRO 12 Unions do get around 50% of the participation pot.

You may even see it as I believe PLC do that the participation pot should be split between the 3 leagues each recieving 33%.

But the ERC (H-cup Almin) was formed by the Unions, so the divide is Union based. As sure each Union will defend its share, and will not give up a large % of this.

I don't see the shares changing, even Mark McCafferty has said its not about the size of the slices its the size of the pie, they are intrested in.

Shares will remain roughly as is, but how pot is generated is maybe the main issue.

Kingshu if the Pro12 sides don't compromise there's a danger they'll lose the pie completely which would leave the Scottish and Italian clubs in particular in tatters financially.

Better to get a smaller piece of the pie than none pie at all surely?

Dubbelyew L Overate wrote:2.5% for each team is a fair starting point - it recognises that the collective is stronger than the individual and rewards all equally. However, it should be considered only a starting point.

Above that, teams will earn bonuses by their success.

Crucially, a heallthy dose of realism is also needed, and the viability of the financially weaker teams recognised. So, instead of the money being shared equally, a subsistence bonus can be awarded to prop up the weaker teams. It would need to be balanced. though, so that individual development isn't discouraged by a guaranteed payout, and, at the same time, regularly reviewed, so that as and when the Italians, for example, start becoming self-sufficient with Pro12 gates of 15k+, they lose that bonus.

Do you see the SRU, FIR and WRU agreeing to have thier share halved?

Basically these unions reduced the number of team they have to concentrate resourses to be better able to compete, a share per club system punishes this method. Would you like the Italians to revert back to super 10 and enter these 10 teams in Europe, for 10 shares of the competation? Payments and allocation of teams is per Union and the Union decides how many teams it will have. France want 14 thats fine, England 12 likewise, Ireland 4 thats thier call.

beshocked wrote:Kingshu if the Pro12 sides don't compromise there's a danger they'll lose the pie completely which would leave the Scottish and Italian clubs in particular in tatters financially.

Better to get a smaller piece of the pie than none pie at all surely?

but as they said last week after the meeting,

“All parties reaffirmed their desire to see European club rugby’s tournaments continue to grow and develop further and to involve all of the current participant stakeholders.”

so your just WUMMING, none of the Stakeholders will see thier share decrease, and therefor the divide of money in terms of %per Union will not change, what may change is the divide bewteen particition money and knock out round prize money.

niwatts wrote:It proves nothing but what happened in one instance. Something that is predominantly true will by definition have some exceptions.

Did the PRL say that every game played by an English club gets higher viewing figures than those featuring PRO12 sides? If so, please provide a link to this comment and I'll happily concede the point.

In terms of the general claim that was made, that it's the French & English teams that draw the most viewers and therefore money to the competition, the only relevant figures that would prove or disprove it are those for all the matches over the course of the tournament, not individual games.

OK but the PRL said that they get way more viewers. We've seen no evidence of that.

greytiger wrote:It is noticeable for instance that the Tigers v Saints game in November is already a sell-out - in fact they have appealed for season ticket holders who are unable to attend to trade in their seats. http://www.leicestertigers.com/news/15059.php

The HEC game v Ospreys this month, on the other hand are still freely available.

Maybe the stark truth is that the Rabo needs the HEC whereas the Jeff and T14 just treat them as jam on top of their bread and butter.

This is despite the fact that punters could just stay at home and watch either game on pay-to-view from the same provider. It appears that the Jeff is a bigger draw for rugby fans in the East Midlands.

Problem is with us English is that we love our league and the occasional cake icing is very welcome. But not essential.

If it didn't matter to English clubs they wouldn't be threatening to leave the tournament. They'll lose out on the money from the pie as well as taking a hit from attendances and sponsors etc.

The HEC is growing all the time and is starting to generate more TV money, sponsorship money and bring in bigger crowds. At the moment the English could afford to pull out but they'd have to do a bit of squad trimming. The money is less important to the French as Toulouse has shown by saying they want to stay in it no matter what.

Blood hell Kingshu. That is a bit like asking The Doyle if they'd agree to foist whatever sanctions Angela Merkel decreed on the Eurozone.
But eventually they would - or get their flanks exposed.

Or the ROI placing a Maastricht referendum before it's people for a second time because the first time they got it right.

It is an unfortunate fact that these days - even after the banking crisis and the lessons learned there - money will talk louder than fairness.

Kingshu wrote:

beshocked wrote:Kingshu if the Pro12 sides don't compromise there's a danger they'll lose the pie completely which would leave the Scottish and Italian clubs in particular in tatters financially.

Better to get a smaller piece of the pie than none pie at all surely?

but as they said last week after the meeting,

“All parties reaffirmed their desire to see European club rugby’s tournaments continue to grow and develop further and to involve all of the current participant stakeholders.”

so your just WUMMING, none of the Stakeholders will see thier share decrease, and therefor the divide of money in terms of %per Union will not change, what may change is the divide bewteen particition money and knock out round prize money.

Erm, Kingshu, the phrase "involve all stakeholders" doesn't actually mean "keep all stakeholdings the same". The stakeholdings may well stay the same, or the stakeholders may agree to changes - that's part of the negotiation process.

So Kingsu you agree that the Celt/Ita unions have changed things since the HEC/Amlin started to get an advantage

profitius wrote:

greytiger wrote:It is noticeable for instance that the Tigers v Saints game in November is already a sell-out - in fact they have appealed for season ticket holders who are unable to attend to trade in their seats. http://www.leicestertigers.com/news/15059.php

The HEC game v Ospreys this month, on the other hand are still freely available.

Maybe the stark truth is that the Rabo needs the HEC whereas the Jeff and T14 just treat them as jam on top of their bread and butter.

This is despite the fact that punters could just stay at home and watch either game on pay-to-view from the same provider. It appears that the Jeff is a bigger draw for rugby fans in the East Midlands.

Problem is with us English is that we love our league and the occasional cake icing is very welcome. But not essential.

If it didn't matter to English clubs they wouldn't be threatening to leave the tournament. They'll lose out on the money from the pie as well as taking a hit from attendances and sponsors etc.

The HEC is growing all the time and is starting to generate more TV money, sponsorship money and bring in bigger crowds. At the moment the English could afford to pull out but they'd have to do a bit of squad trimming. The money is less important to the French as Toulouse has shown by saying they want to stay in it no matter what.

It's important what the French decide. If they join forces with England both will be in an unassailable position and can force the Pro12 sides into a compromise.

France can easily backstab England but it would lead to a smaller pie. Also it would lead to Anglo-French relations in rugby taking a bit hit which would have far reaching ramifications.

Do France really want to upset England?

red_stag wrote:

beshocked wrote:red stag if they are not relying on handouts what is so wrong with one of Glasgow or Edinburgh being in the Amlin?

I have no problems with one of them being in the Amlin.

I have a problem with England, Ireland, Scotland and Wales being lumped together under the "Pro 12" for European qualification. I have a problem with "the Pro 12" allocation being cut by 40% and France or England feeling no pinch whatsoever.

Those are my issues. I do not mind a 20 team HEC, I don't mind losing a place or two and I don't mind a bigger Amlin and a third tier competition.

I would readily accept the following:

- 5 England
- 5 France
- 2 Ireland
- 2 Wales
- 1 Italy
- 1 Scotland
- Next two highest Pro12 teams regardless of nationality
- Winning Heineken Cup nation gets another place
- Winning Amlin Cup nation gets another place

Thats a fair compromise. England and France each give up one place. The "Rabo" gives up two places. All 6 Nations are represented. The Heineken Cup drops down to 20 teams just like France/England want which strenghtens the Amlin Cup. Everyone has to qualify. Nobody gets a free ride.

I don't think any nation or any league has room to complain under such a system.

Tremendous proposal - no more to be said

AsLongAsBut100ofUs wrote:

red_stag wrote:

beshocked wrote:red stag if they are not relying on handouts what is so wrong with one of Glasgow or Edinburgh being in the Amlin?

I have no problems with one of them being in the Amlin.

I have a problem with England, Ireland, Scotland and Wales being lumped together under the "Pro 12" for European qualification. I have a problem with "the Pro 12" allocation being cut by 40% and France or England feeling no pinch whatsoever.

Those are my issues. I do not mind a 20 team HEC, I don't mind losing a place or two and I don't mind a bigger Amlin and a third tier competition.

I would readily accept the following:

- 5 England
- 5 France
- 2 Ireland
- 2 Wales
- 1 Italy
- 1 Scotland
- Next two highest Pro12 teams regardless of nationality
- Winning Heineken Cup nation gets another place
- Winning Amlin Cup nation gets another place

Thats a fair compromise. England and France each give up one place. The "Rabo" gives up two places. All 6 Nations are represented. The Heineken Cup drops down to 20 teams just like France/England want which strenghtens the Amlin Cup. Everyone has to qualify. Nobody gets a free ride.

I don't think any nation or any league has room to complain under such a system.

Tremendous proposal - no more to be said

Except it's not As.

Eventually over the next six months an agreement will be reached and that will be it so far as the ERC/PRL/HECetc. debate is concerned.

But the v2 debate will rumble on. There will be many v2 articles once any changes are agreed.

AsLongAsBut100ofUs wrote:

red_stag wrote:

beshocked wrote:red stag if they are not relying on handouts what is so wrong with one of Glasgow or Edinburgh being in the Amlin?

I have no problems with one of them being in the Amlin.

I have a problem with England, Ireland, Scotland and Wales being lumped together under the "Pro 12" for European qualification. I have a problem with "the Pro 12" allocation being cut by 40% and France or England feeling no pinch whatsoever.

Those are my issues. I do not mind a 20 team HEC, I don't mind losing a place or two and I don't mind a bigger Amlin and a third tier competition.

I would readily accept the following:

- 5 England
- 5 France
- 2 Ireland
- 2 Wales
- 1 Italy
- 1 Scotland
- Next two highest Pro12 teams regardless of nationality
- Winning Heineken Cup nation gets another place
- Winning Amlin Cup nation gets another place

Thats a fair compromise. England and France each give up one place. The "Rabo" gives up two places. All 6 Nations are represented. The Heineken Cup drops down to 20 teams just like France/England want which strenghtens the Amlin Cup. Everyone has to qualify. Nobody gets a free ride.

I don't think any nation or any league has room to complain under such a system.

Tremendous proposal - no more to be said

Still allows piggybacking off other side's glory.

beshocked wrote:

AsLongAsBut100ofUs wrote:

red_stag wrote:

beshocked wrote:red stag if they are not relying on handouts what is so wrong with one of Glasgow or Edinburgh being in the Amlin?

I have no problems with one of them being in the Amlin.

I have a problem with England, Ireland, Scotland and Wales being lumped together under the "Pro 12" for European qualification. I have a problem with "the Pro 12" allocation being cut by 40% and France or England feeling no pinch whatsoever.

Those are my issues. I do not mind a 20 team HEC, I don't mind losing a place or two and I don't mind a bigger Amlin and a third tier competition.

I would readily accept the following:

- 5 England
- 5 France
- 2 Ireland
- 2 Wales
- 1 Italy
- 1 Scotland
- Next two highest Pro12 teams regardless of nationality
- Winning Heineken Cup nation gets another place
- Winning Amlin Cup nation gets another place

Thats a fair compromise. England and France each give up one place. The "Rabo" gives up two places. All 6 Nations are represented. The Heineken Cup drops down to 20 teams just like France/England want which strenghtens the Amlin Cup. Everyone has to qualify. Nobody gets a free ride.

I don't think any nation or any league has room to complain under such a system.

Tremendous proposal - no more to be said

Still allows piggybacking off other side's glory.

Agreed. No club/side should benefit from another's success.
I'm siding with Beshocked now.

If you want to qualify, you should earn it.
And this week's Connacht v Zebre epitomises exactly the problem which lies at the core of the problem.

Red Stag and I were almost at agreement when he said that he'd rather have supplementary places by nations. I said leagues and he intimated that he'd rather have ano English/French side.

I have to say that was a bizarre comment.

Thanks greytiger.

On the other hand maybe 5 is a good number.

The thing I have noticed about the English sides that qualify in 5th and 6th generally aren't as strong as the top 4 which is unsurprising. They don't do particularly well in the HC.

I wouldn't expect Sale to make much of an impact in the HC. They came 6th in the AP.

Last season's 5th,6th and 7th sides - Irish,Bath and Gloucester went out with a whimper.

Just having the top 5 could well boost the quality.